The Polymath Primer: How to Be a Natural (and Childlike) Learner

What do Leonardo da Vinci, Sherlock Holmes, and your childhood self have in common?

The Renaissance Era is widely regarded as the brightest era for human learning. Perhaps it really is. Circa 15th–16th century, as if by some divine intervention, all the conditions necessary to foster the knowledge and wisdom of humankind converges, giving way for the birth of ideas monumental enough to change the flow of civilization.

While Renaissance happens in many places, there is one particular spot regarded as its centre: The Italian city of Florence. The nexus of many timeless names like Michelangelo, Niccolo Machiavelli, Lorenzo “Il Magnifico” Medici, and of course; Leonardo da Vinci — the mold of the Renaissance Man. A person said to have a universal understanding on the universe.

Possessing expertise from art, engineering, to social sciences; the Renaissance Man is the complete package. Everyone in the pursuit of knowledge puts this archetype in high regard, and aim to become its modern-day incarnation.

In the present, we have people like Elon Musk that embodies this archetype. Often, we deem these people “gifted” or “special,” dismissing our own chance of ever rising to similar heights.

But isn’t that too pessimistic? What if it is possible for everyone to become like them? I believe that it’s possible, and we can even find the proof in the behavior of children.

Curiosity Killed the Cat, but —

Mankind is perhaps the most universal species on earth. For us, anything goes.

Our preference for food, for instance. We are omnivores by default, gaining nutrition from a smorgasbord of sources. We consume everything that incites our appetite. Later, we can choose a particular diet, like vegetarian or pescetarian diet. But that’s up to us.

Our preference for knowledge is similar. We consume everything that sparks our curiosity. In his book The Polymath, Waqas Ahmed draws on myriad sources to express that polymathy is the natural state of human beings:

“There is an overwhelming consensus among sociologists that curiosity is one of the fundamental traits of the human condition — a natural disposition that exists in all humans regardless of class, race or gender.”

As children, we were born with an innate inquisitiveness, an unquenched curiosity. The first time we opened our eyes to the world, everything naturally seemed shiny and intriguing.

Etymologically, the word “polymath” means “to learn many.” Thus, a polymath is not necessarily someone who masters many things, but simply learns them. In this regard, all human children are natural polymaths.

For children, learning equals joy. We try to learn everything simply because we want to.

Curiosity may kill the cat, but it fosters the human child.

Does that mean every human is a polymath? Not necessarily. As children, indeed, we veer towards that direction. However, this natural inclination diminishes as we grow up.

Even after we defined “polymath” as someone who simply “learns” and not “masters,” many people still do not fit into these criteria. As bizarre as it seems, this realization might not be a surprise for you: Some people simply dislike learning — even when we broaden that definition of learning beyond book-smart and into street-smart education.

Learning, as basic an act as it may be, is a foreign and lackluster idea for these people.

Many people blame the failings of formal education for this occurrence, but I’m not here to criticize the education system. The point I’d like to underscore from this is, in school, we’re told to learn because we have to — because we need a job, because we need an income — not because we want to.

Slowly our learning orientation changes from natural inquisitiveness to a pursuit of professional endeavors and material wealth.

Then, should we still learn to fulfill our curiosity, or should we be realistic and just do it to develop our professions?

The Case of Sherlock Holmes

In every discussion about polymath or Renaissance Man, Leonardo da Vinci is almost always used as an example — and for good reason. The man is, after all, an unmatched paragon of human learning.

However, I’d like to explore another figure, and try dissecting this idea from a different viewpoint.

I know Sherlock Holmes is fictional, and his story is not even set during the Renaissance, but this famous detective can be a unique example of a polymath.

In A Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle described Sherlock as a person with myriad fields of expertise. But there’s a catch: He only learns the knowledge and skills that support his profession — and he took it to the utmost extreme.

Here’s an excerpt from the book:

“Dr. Watson’s summary list of Sherlock Holmes’s strengths and weaknesses:

“1. Knowledge of Literature: Nil. 2. Knowledge of Philosophy: Nil. 3. Knowledge of Astronomy: Nil. 4. Knowledge of Politics: Feeble. 5. Knowledge of Botany: Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium, and poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical gardening. 6. Knowledge of Geology: Practical but limited. Tells at a glance different soils from each other. After walks has shown me splashes upon his trousers, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he had received them. 7. Knowledge of Chemistry: Profound. 8. Knowledge of Anatomy: Accurate but unsystematic. 9. Knowledge of Sensational Literature: Immense. He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century. 10. Plays the violin well. 11. Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman. 12. Has a good practical knowledge of British law.”

From Watson’s list, we can infer that Sherlock is highly adept at subjects relevant to his profession, but oblivious in others that don’t.

He studies chemistry because it helps him to identify substances used in crime, but he disregards astronomy because it isn’t necessary for a detective to name celestial bodies. Watson even remarked that Sherlock isn’t even aware that the earth is orbiting the sun.

Sherlock’s take on this is a bit extreme, but you get the point. Personally, I agree that everyone should indulge their curiosities and pursue any topic that piques their interest. However, the example of Sherlock Holmes shows us that mindful choice of learning can lead to extraordinary results.

The main lesson we can learn from this case is probably this:

When done aimlessly, learning will still increase your knowledge, but it serves little purpose than to indulge your intellectual cravings. While by definition a polymath is “one that learns many,” we should learn with purpose.

I think this is a good middle ground between the childlike approach of “learning whatever you want” and the conventional approach of “learning to develop your profession.”

Now let’s see how we can expand this idea.

Contradictory Hybrid

In a previous writing, I have mentioned how complexity can add a degree of attractiveness in one’s personality. Perhaps this notion is all the more relevant when applied in a learning context, especially professional learning.

Polymathy, as an integrated approach to learning, equips you with a wide range of knowledge and skills. To give direction to this vast repertoire, you need to focus. However, instead of focusing by “choosing one” among those myriad topics, I think it’s better (and cooler) to “combine” them.

Observe these examples:

A software engineer with an eloquent vocabulary

By having good linguistic skills, the software engineer is able to explain his codes in a clear and poetic fashion. This combination enables him to translate complicated programming languages into words understandable and attractive to the layman.

A designer with extensive technological capabilities

By being tech-savvy, the designer is able to expand beyond the game of aesthetics. As Steve Jobs expressed, “Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” — this adage encourages designers to create meaningful forms and functions, instead of merely beautifying the outside appearance.

A pharmacist with impeccable cooking skills

By having excellent cooking skills, the pharmacist is able to integrate his medical knowledge and culinary tastes, thus allowing him to create a medicine with exquisite flavors or a dish that has medicinal properties.

A musician with deep understanding on human neurology

By understanding principles of neurology, the musician is able to manipulate his music beyond pleasing the ears. This combination enables him to alter his music to affect the mind of the listeners. His music will be able to brighten one’s mood, sharpen one’s focus, or clear one’s mind; without fail.

I hope these examples have done well to illustrate my point. What do you think? Do you have some hybrids of your own?

There’s still more to polymathy. Let’s continue.

Beyond the Hybrid

There is more to life than just a career. Again, a polymath learns because he enjoys it, not because his profession demands so.

Your current job, or the major you took in university, can be a good initial direction for learning — but take note: It’s a direction, not a shackle. By all means, learn anything outside of that should it interests you.

For instance, I am a Bachelor of Urban Planning; and currently I’m in my Master’s studies on Cultural and Creative Industries. These two disciplines are broad by nature, and this breadth exposes me to a lot of different topics. The thing is, this exposure only sparks my interest and made me eager to learn more.

Beyond those disciplines, I also love reading about philosophy and psychology in my free time — time that I made consciously. Thus granting me decent knowledge in those fields, albeit the lack of formal education. My writing in Medium even revolves mainly around those two subjects. Maybe I should write more about what I’ve studied in university? Huh, I guess so.

Why philosophy and psychology? Because these two subjects are close to our lives, no matter what we do for a living. Polymathy is not constrained to your job, it’s a learning approach for life.

Also, I like to learn random skills like guitar playing and coffee brewing — simply because I enjoy them. These things do not affect my career in any way, but they are things that I will do anyway regardless of my job. I love listening to music, therefore I learned to play it. I love drinking coffee, therefore I learned to brew it. It’s only natural.

The earlier example of Sherlock Holmes is valid and useful, albeit a bit extreme — but, in the end, that’s just him. You can be your own polymath. If you have that level of dedication for your job, then Sherlock’s approach might be perfect for you. Otherwise, don’t let your occupation define what you should learn.

As long as a subject is enticing for you, and it has a place in your life, nothing should be in your way of learning it.

We’ll conclude this in the next section.

Conclusion

The thing that sparked my interest in polymathy is definitely these words from Leonardo da Vinci:

“To develop a complete mind: Study the science of art; Study the art of science. Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.”

Who decided that a rockstar can’t also be a scientist? Or that a soccer legend can’t also be a filmmaker? Or that a chef can’t also be a historian?

It’s a fallacy to put intellectual endeavors into disparate boxes. Experts gave names for scientific branches simply to explain their nature, not to separate them from each other. It’s just as the eponymous Renaissance Man stated: Everything connects to everything else.

Learn everything you like. Combine them into a unique hybrid and create your own profession. Become a beautiful contradiction.

And beneath it all: Know that you can. Remember the child’s curiosity — polymathy is your natural state of being.

Have fun on your learning journey. I wish you well.

Caulfield Library Sol, 28th of Juno A.D. 2020

Godspeed.

_